Letters to the Editor
-
@JackHughes
"2. Obama as VP will assure the Democratic Party's nomination in 2012. That combined with his influence as VP should satisfy Obama supporters."
With all due respect, this won't satisfy anyone. It's an insult to suggest that Obama should be VP when he's ahead by nearly 10% in the pledged delegate count and he's ahead in number of states won. He's all but closed the super delegate gap and there are contradicting counts of if he is or is not actually ahead in the popular vote. He's run a remarkable campaign and inspired millions of new and independent voters. He's defied conventional wisdom and he's beating Hillary who was all but designated heir apparent 6 months ago.
Please look at these polls:
1)http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/
2)http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/john_mccain_match_ups/election_2008_mccain_vs_clinton_and_obama
3)http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
All three show that Obama has a much better chance of beating McCain in the general election than Hillary.
If you are genuinely concerned about the Democrats winning the Presidency in November, then please urge Hillary to withdraw her bid and throw her resources into helping Obama win in November.
-
apologies to shawnm
my last post was to tmaddin74.
-
BrownNosers
Hispanic voters if they are not Black have always supported white candidates and related choices over Blacks. White hispanics have a conflicted realtionship with whites many seek to be white and many pass as white and of course in america's social pecking order all groups want to be higher than Blacks they is true of arab-americans as well as asian americans..
Joan's clamor for white woman to be at the table is amusing since they have a candidate in the presidential race and white woman have been the primary winners of Affirmative Action..
-
@tmaddin
Actually, the racist generalization is that all Latinos are the same. Latinos in America are not some homogenous, nationless group of immigrants
Er, my point precisely. Like whites, they focus on their concerns of raising their kids, putting food on the table and healthcare, rather than being overly obsessed or identified with their being hispanic.
Many studies have supported this, and even with all the late noise about immigration the Republicans have stirred, a full 41% of Latinos see no difference between the parties on the matter. Similarly while 59% of Latinos support Hillary Clinton, only 15% support Barrack Obama. Given that the Latinos are strategically located and poised to decide the election, it should been a grave concern to all that an Obama primary win will not only lose the election, but will alienate hispancis from the party.
pewhispanic.org/files/reports/83.pdf for more information.
-
@little lord baltimore
With all due respect, this won't satisfy anyone. It's an insult to suggest that Obama should be VP when he's ahead by nearly 10% in the pledged delegate count and he's ahead in number of states won. He's all but closed the super delegate gap and there are contradicting counts of if he is or is not actually ahead in the popular vote. He's run a remarkable campaign and inspired millions of new and independent voters. He's defied conventional wisdom and he's beating Hillary who was all but designated heir apparent 6 months ago.
With all due respect, that's not a conclusion, it's a premise.
I'm assuming we get to the convention deadlocked -- Obama leading in delegates, Clinton leading in popular vote, with neither having enough delegates to win.
-
@Jack
"I'm assuming we get to the convention deadlocked -- Obama leading in delegates, Clinton leading in popular vote, with neither having enough delegates to win."
Isn't that also a premise?
I guess I'm not understanding why even with all the variables in your scenario, Hillary should be at the top of the ticket and Obama should be the VP.
-
There is NO black-brown divide, It's a false notion that unity between the two is their natural state
Brown is NOT black, any more than Black is white.
The notion that a unity between the two is natural and sensible shows the person who thinks that is neither.
In one area Hispanics/Latinos whatever descriptive word you choose are politically mature in one area - we vote in their OWN BEST INTERESTS.
Voting for a politician just because he has dark skin is NOT in anyone's interest, especially with the so so history of the results when Latinos have supported African American candidates.
Almost always once the Latino community threw its support to an African American candidate, the moment he got into office, the Latinos found out what it was like for Blacks when they voted in the White candidate.
They were dismissed. Their issues took the back seat.
The African-American candidate generally felt that the oppression of Latinos is a "white problem." Blacks are not responsible so they have no responsibility to try to fix that problem.
They had no problem monopolizing the jobs for their own insiders.
Bradley of L.A. was an exception, but as soon as Hispanics there e had an opportunity they got their own in the office.
After 30yrs of working together we've learned one thing, trust your own.
The notion that thanks to the African American experience with racism and bigotry that they'll be better at dealing with other minorities has proven totally false.
African Americans are like ANY GROUP. They put their own first.
This goes for Whites too, and in cities where the "white" element fractures along ethnic lines it works that way.
It's NOT a color thing. It's a human nature thing.
So the notion that you can heal "a divide" is silly. It doesn't exist per se.
It's an aspect of human nature that we should all be aware of in order to ameliorate the excesses that create needless tension.
Finally Latinos have something else to look at as proof, several hundred years of African Americans placing their faith in White leaders to solve their problems. It hasn't truly happened yet.
So why in the world would we repeat the mistake, and just blindly place our faith in African Americans simply because they are dark-skinned.
We want results. We want proof of commitment and ability to help with the issues of Latinos.
In that regard Clinton shows the proof. Obama does not. He is just another politician expecting us to vote for him because.
That may work for the guilt-ridden upper income elite who chatter excitedly at dinner about his promises for a change you can believe in.
Their chatter sounds inane and for no specific reason insulting to the Hispanic maids who serve them, and the Latino garden workers who maintain their lawn.
What goes through our head is if you're so eager for this "change" how come you don't start with your own personal life and treat us better. Then we just tune it out.
Words of "hope for change you can believe in" fall on deaf ears in the Latino community.
What we want to see is proof not words. In that way Latinos are very pragmatic
The things that make him so glamorous to his supporters are invisible to us.
His charisma does not translate into Spanish. It's that simple!
Without that free pass. He gets the vote his record helping the Latino community nationally merits.